FORESTRY EXPANSION NEEDS PROPER FRAMEWORK FOR LANDOWNERS

Oldtree

2014-01-28

Addressing the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture this afternoon (Tues), IFA Forestry Chairman Michael Fleming said he was concerned that the Forestry Bill creates a restrictive legislative framework that would be extremely detrimental to the expansion of the sector unless amendments are made.

He said, “The expansion of the sector is dependent on farmer involvement and the Bill should create a legislative framework that supports farm level timber production, as well as satisfying the multi-functional aspects of today’s forests”.

Nearly 17,000 farmers have invested in forestry. The age distribution of these forests is young; most of the forests were established over the past two decades, with approximately 20% entering production stage. The forest and forest products sector contribute €2.2bn to the Irish economy and provides 16,000 jobs.

In 2013, only 6,200 hectares of new forest were established, which well below the sustainable level of 15,000 hectares per annum required to achieve the strategic plan. In the last three years, we have consistently failed to plant the 7,000 hectares budgetary allocation for the afforestation programme. A combination of policy and funding measures have undermined farmer confidence in the forestry programme in recent years and contributed to the decline.

Michael Fleming said private forest owners must have the right to manage their forest in accordance with their own management objectives, as long the management is consistent with the principles of sustainable forest management.

“The requirement to submit a management plan, which may be approved, rejected, revoked or revised at any stage is an unnecessary barrier to afforestation and the mobilisation of the timber resource. It increases the administrative burden, the management costs associated with an operation and creates huge uncertainty for private forest owners.”

The IFA Forestry Chairman said, “The Bill proposes to confer wide-ranging powers that permit the Minister to attach unspecified conditions to, or vary the conditions of, a felling licence including the power to dictate the type of trees to be replanted or to refuse a felling licence outright without any consideration for the potential financial loss to the forest owner”.

Michael Fleming said, “Forest owners must be compensated for any financial loss incurred if the conditions attached to management plans or felling licences reduce the economic return on investment. To confer such broad functions on the Minister, without regard for the management objectives of the forest owner, creates uncertainty and is a major disincentive to farmers considering forestry as a land use option”.

http://www.ifa.ie/Sectors/Forestry/tabid/615/ctl/Detail/mid/2316/xmid/6063/xmfid/23/Default.aspx

There may be trouble ahead!

periodictable

Michael Fleming said private forest owners must have the right to manage their forest in accordance with their own management objectives, as long the management is consistent with the principles of sustainable forest management.

In recent years the FS demands little or no drainage.
Mounding drains are to be no more than 45cm in depth, which is 1 1/2 feet.
I learned from a great forester that in Ireland, given the soils we plant on, you have to get the water off the site at all costs. This necessitates reopening the old field drains, as well as deep mounding to minimum of 60cm.
Following Wednesday's storm, and having walked my plantations, those trees that blew over were in areas where there was some impediment to drainage. 35 yo radiata pine, from the same planting stock either blew over with root-plates, or some of those that stood, in drier, ground, suffered wind-snap. Similar story for other species.
It's not wind that knocks the trees, but a combination of water/rain and wind.
Given the efficiency of mechanical mounding in removing surface water, and the attendant benefits of that process, there are valid reasons for worrying about sending large amounts of water into the rivers so quickly. However, the creation of reservoirs which suit many purposes, will solve many of the problems.
I don't know where the FS comes up with these rules/guidelines but it's a prime example of detrimental interference in management. We all know our sites/localities, and unconsciously absorb what aids/inhibits tree growing, and the FS green book, to borrow from Dorothy Parker, needs not alone to be thrown away, but rather flung to the furthest corner of the room, and rewritten afresh. It contains far too much bull****, clearly written by people far more comfortable in swivel chairs than out in the field.

Oldtree

The book should be written by forestry owners who take an interest in their plantation and make observations over time.

While I understand the need for drains and mound planting, I have read (an American paper I think will try to find it) that it takes up to 15 years for soil (texture and structure) to re-coagulate (for want of a better word) and this only happens with worm action and weathering.

I am concerned that mounding may lead to a less than stable soil over time and more subject to windthrow. Perhaps deeper drains would be a better way forward and a more accurate management of on site water flow directions. I also Feel that (based on observation) that irish soils can take much longer to re-coagulate due to the amount of rainfall, and don't see peaty soils re-coagulating much thus relying on root systems to hold things togeather.

Are tap roots still removed in forestry nurserys today? I have noticed a number of mature windthrown trees without any tap root.

periodictable

Oldtree wrote: »

Are tap roots still removed in forestry nurserys today? I have noticed a number of mature windthrown trees without any tap root.

Most conifers don't have a main tap root- they tend to have a fibrous/plate root system. Some will develop a taproot if planted in deep soils, such as Douglas Fir or Grand Fir. Pines develop a taproot, but as it is quite strong and vigorous, in a nursery situation the year old trees are undercut to get rid of the tap root and to promote the other roots. If the pine saplings were not treated this way, by the end of year 2 you could have a taproot of up to 1m in depth, and the attendant problems of trying to plant such trees. Another worry is the lack of plasticity of pine roots-when you place them in the planting hole, they will maintain the configuration in which they were inserted, and rarely develop outwards. Other trees seem to be able to recover and re establish a normal root system. Pines grown in root trainers will have quite an undisturbed root system, air pruning of the roots, and once planted out, the tap can grow away.
I once planted some P. radiata by splitting the mound, and carefully spreading the roots under the mound, and the trees grew straight with no J-stem, and at last measuring after 30 years were 25m. I haven't had a chance to check them since the storm, but I'd not be surprised if they have gone over, but I'd also think that there is wind snap rather than blow.
Re. mounding: With the removal of water, soil processes are enhanced by the resultant warming of the soil, and increased biotic activity in the soil.
As you say, there is no substitute for being on the ground each and every day, and the week one doesn't learn something new is rare.

Oldtree

I have also noticed some windthrow with taproots, Sitka, which is why I asked, so I just wondered if the tap root would make them more stable in the long run and less subject to windthrow than a fibrus 1u1. Perhaps less subject to windthrow, on an individual tree basis, in a coup that had suffered windthrow already.

I think the winds are not going to get less in the years to come and every detail will have to be attended to, to ensure the security of our coups in the future from these increasingly violent and frequent storm winds.

about the mounding, that is an interesting observation, would digging deeper drains have the same effect, leaving the soil more intact on planting?

periodictable

You don't want the mounds too high, else the roots will tend to go straight down rather than spread throughout the mound. For large mounds, the machine operator ought to flatten the mound with the bucket.
Mounding has 2 desired effects, 1. removes surface water, and 2. better tree rooting and each tree is independent of the others rather than on a ploughed ribbon, where if one tree goes, it pulls the rest of the line.
I guess I look at single trees on the landscape, and see how they stand alone. This is because wind effects on the tree stimulate greater root development at the expense of height, so the tree is inherently more stable, unlike its pals in the plantation which support and shelter each other thereby requiring less roots and resulting in greater height growth. The trick to keeping your trees standing then is to thin early and often, to keep the trees exposed to some wind. Of course wider spacing will result in more branches so it's necessary to prune. Opinions vary on thinning early and heavily, but if you plan on your crop standing in high wind areas, I think this is the way to go.
Re taproots-they are desirable, but there are windspeeds above which trees will blow or snap no matter how good the rooting/site.
Here's an interesting BFC paper

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCIN078.pdf/$FILE/FCIN078.pdf

Oldtree

Will read that paper. Come to think of it the trees with the tap roots that were blown over didn't seem to have drainage nearby and more of a ridge type effect on the ground, maby an older style of planting (perhaps the ploughed ribbon you refer to)? The lie of the land was running down towards a lake. I had thought the tap root worked something like a thumb tack, very difficult to pull out and securely anchored into the ground.

It was in Ardnageeha Wood near Cong, up from the beach.